Gettysburg Borough and police continue to argue over contract

A settlement offer was not approved by the borough council at its Monday meeting.

The dizzying saga of legal battles between the Borough of Gettysburg and its police union continued this week without a compromise, three years after the original argument began.

The two groups have been fighting over police pay raises and a new police contract since 2009 until suddenly Friday, when it finally looked like it all might be over. Representatives from both sides reached a resolution, pending an approval by Borough Council, said police attorney Ira Weinstock, of Ira H. Weinstock P.C. in Harrisburg.

The resolution however, already appeared to be falling apart just three days later when the council failed to approve the resolution at its meeting Monday night.

"We thought we had a resolution," Weinstock said. "This puts us back at accepting their counter-proposal or a court date." And he added, "we are not going to accept their counter-offer."

Borough Council President Michael Birkner, on the other hand, did not seem to think that the situation was quite so dire, saying after the council meeting on Monday that, "council had an earnest conversation about what the next steps are." Details about this conversation however, were not revealed since the discussion was related to ongoing litigation and was held in private. The details of the borough's counter offer have not been revealed either.

The two parties now have until March 23 to settle on their own before the dispute is brought back into court.

Advertisement

The problems between the police and the borough began in 2009 when the Gettysburg Police contract expired and the two sides failed to negotiate the terms of a new contract.

In May, an arbitration panel ruled that the borough retroactively pay police officers a 4 percent raise for 2011, as well as a 4 percent raise in 2012 and a 3.99 percent raise in 2013. In her written dissent of the panel's decision, Borough arbitrator and attorney Gretchen Love, of Campbell Durrant Beatty Palombo & Miller P.C. in Pittsburgh, lashed back at the panel's decision, calling it "unconscionable." While she did not dispute what at the time were future pay raises in 2012 and 2013, she argued against the 4 percent retroactive payments, which amounted to a $25,785 expense for the borough.

"The panel majority failed to consider the Borough's economic conditions in fashioning its award," Love wrote.

The borough has showed signs of economic difficulties in recent years, cutting one police clerk position in order to balance its budget in 2013. A recent estimate by the Pennsylvania Economy League also found that without a tax increase, the municipality could find itself in debt by 2015, due in large part to the rising costs of employee health care and benefits.

Love raised the issue of tax increases in her dissent, writing that, "There is no justification that can support the notion that Borough residents, who have likely not experienced a wage increase in several consecutive years, should be required to pay for a 20 percent increase in cost for the Police Department."

Some have raised concerns that after several years of contention, it will be the legal fees, and not the police wages, that end up costing borough residents.

"Borough council is wasting taxpayer money by trying a case that could be settled and should be settled -by bringing an attorney in all the way from Pittsburgh," Weinstock said.

The borough, however, would not accept the burden that the $25,785 arbitration award would place on its budget and so in June, it moved forward with a formal appeal. The borough claimed that the Teamsters Union representing the police failed to follow proper protocol leading up to the arbitration and thereby invalidated the final decision, according to court documents.

This argument was used by the borough in 2009 and expressed in a letter from then manager, John Lawver, to an attorney representing the police. In the letter Lawver disputed nearly every aspect of the police union's interest in arbitration, including the very date that the letter notifying the borough of the union's intent to enter arbitration was sent.

"Please note that the August 30, 2009 letter was left under my office door on or about September 14, 2009," wrote Lawver. "It is the Borough's position that the Union's demand for arbitration was untimely and not properly served on Borough Council President Edwin R. Peterson."

The borough has continued to stick with this argument for the past three years, citing the Act 111 legislation that mandates that notice of intent to enter into arbitration must be made to the head of the local governing body, which is the borough president. Because of this technicality, the borough has claimed that the panel of arbitrators had no jurisdiction to make awards from the 2011 calendar year.

Weinstock has denied the claim several times over, writing in response to the borough's appeal that, "the documents speak for themselves." He also wrote that the Borough was a difficult party to work with, adding that, "it is specifically denied that the Borough ever bargained in good faith or intended to do so."

If the dispute does go back to the courts, Weinstock said, the validity of this claim will be determined by the judge.
To add to the back-and-forth, the Teamsters Union representing the police brought the borough to the court again in January, claiming that a new police department policy was violating the officers' First and 14th Amendment rights. The policy forbids members of the department from engaging in conversations with Borough Council that concern the police department. Like the dispute before it, this issue has also not been resolved either.

OTTAWA, Ontario (AP) — The death of actor Leonard Nimoy last week has inspired people to post photos on social media of marked-up five-dollar Canadian banknotes that show former prime minister Wilfrid Laurier transformed to resemble Spock, Nimoy's famous "Star Trek" character. Full Story